It is nice to be back here, and even nicer to feel well enough to post and interact with you all. I am very grateful to Chalcedon451 for keeping the whole show on the road, and to Neo, Dave Smith and Geoffrey Sales for their assistance, support, and prayers. Things seem ticking along well, but I have noticed that dear Bosco seems to have added a new tag to the insults he likes to direct at the Catholic tradition – he has taken to calling us “Marys”. Sometimes he says he is not saying we worship Our Lady, so quite what he means by that designation, perhaps he could tell us? He has, however, perhaps without knowing, done something the early Pagans did, which is to designate Christians by one of their most notable characteristics – devotion to the mother of Jesus, and, as the Council of Ephesus of 431 established, therefore, Mother of God.

Bosco has some endearing habits, but one of the other sort is his insistence that on his reading of a couple of verses, we should ignore the thrust of the Gospel and of the history of the early Church, which tells us how devoted mother and Son were to each other, and how much his early followers loved her. So, let us take a look at what the whole Church believed before the sixteenth century, and what a majority of Christians have continued to believe to this very day.

The very first human being to know that Jesus was the Messiah was Maty, and yet despite this. Bosco thinks that Mark 3:31-35 and see Jesus rejecting his mother, and that Mary was not a follower of Jesus. For this to be so would mean that Mary had forgotten who he was, forgotten what the angel had said at Luke 1:21-28, what she herself had said at Luke 1:39-56, what she had seen at her son’s birth, what Simeon had told her in the Temple, and it would mean that when she asked him to perform a miracle at the wedding at Cana, she did not know what she was asking. It would make a nonsense of her being with him at Calvary and of her presence in the early Church. So, what is the weighty evidence Bosco imagines contradicts the burden of Scripture here?

He commonly cites Mark 3:31-35 (link above), and Matthew 12:46-50. But what these passages show is Mary’s concern for him – that is why she and the family had come to see him. Jesus is not rejecting them, he is widening the concept of what family meant to all believers. This is clear if we compare the three Gospel accounts; the emphasis is on those who believe being his family. Bosco thinks Our Lady did not believe. He believes this despite the whole weight of Biblical evidence in the last paragraph on his own private interpretation of one single passage – Mark 3:21-22. That passage, in the Greek, reads ‘hoi par autou’ – literally ‘those belonging to him’. Syriac and Coptic manuscripts translate this as kinsmen, and we know that his brothers and sisters were not, at this point, followers. That makes sense, adding Mary (who is not mentioned) makes none, given what she knew from the Annunciation. On the whole question of the ‘family’ of Jesus, I commend to you a piece here from our own Chalcedon, which, if dear Bosco would but read it, might make him think about things a bit.

So why does Bosco do this? Why does he say she was not very smart? Does he believe that we are likely to believe that the Spirit who inspired Our Lady to utter the words of the Magnificat, inspires him to call her a ‘rugmuncher’? At the Annunciation she was told that her Son was from God, in her great hymn of praise which we read at today’s Gospel, she says, inspired by the Spirit, that ‘all generations shall call me blessed’. Her cousin Elizabeth, inspired by the Spirit, called her ‘the mother of my Lord’. And yet Bosco’s spirit asks us to believe: ‘Mary wasn’t sure what the deal was’. Pull, as thye say, the other one, it has jingle bells attached.

Quite why men like Bosco cannot believe that Our Lady was bright enough to believe what she was told by the Holy Spirit, and quite why they cannot believe she was his first disciple, who can tell? Women were always Our Lord’s closest and bravest followers – how many men were at the foot of the Cross and how many women? I rest my case.

Believe me, Bosco, as an Anglican, I know much more about what my Church teaches than you do. My Church, like the RCC and the Orthodox Church, venerates Mary. I am waiting for you to apologise for calling her a ‘rugmuncher’ – and yes, I do know what that means, which is why you should apologise.

Bosco’s exactly like this guy on chess.com recently who was exploiting a glitch to post in my forums after being told numerous times that he was on my blocked list and being asked to leave me alone (by more than just myself). He started acting dumb.

Bosco knew quite well that the women in the picture were Mary and Elizabeth. Chalcedon’s post was entirely about the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth. So Bosco therefore has no excuse. Don’t show any mercy to any one trying to play dumb about their sins.

Yesterday I posted article 19 of the Anglican beliefs. It says the church of Rome is in error. So, you can claim you know more than me about Anglicanism, but article 19 is still there, even though I am stupid, its still is there. The Marys say Anglicans are in error.

To clarify further on Article 19…
Anglo-Catholics view the Church as an organism composed of all the baptized. Following this, we further believe that the decisions of the Church and its theology is to be ruled by the Church as its entirety whereas the Church of Rome typically puts all the umpire power in the Pope. This is not to say we don’t have “umpires” figuratively speaking. We just don’t believe all doctrinal authority derives from the Pope. Thus, Anglo-Catholics do believe the Church of Rome is in error in this regard but so do even Eastern Orthodox Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I seriously doubt that anyone or any group of Born Again Christians has everything 100% correct even the apostle Paul who had to be given a thorn in the flesh from the Lord to keep him humble due to the clear revelation he had from the Lord said on one occasion “I THINK I have the mind of the Lord”.

Bosco do you claim a higher standard of knowledge of the truth than Paul?

I am not sure what you mean by a ‘system’. Catholics are Christians, I am a Christian, you may be a Christian too. That fellow Jesus said to love one another. I obey his words; what do you do dear Bosco?

Wrong again, Bosco. Anglicans, like Lutherans, Methodist, and almost all Christians, agree with Rome (with a few minor caveats) on Mary. it is what we too learned from the fathers of the church, whom we, being fallible, have read, and learned from, even as we read the entire Bible, not cherry picked verses to suit our purposes.

Now that im less groggy from lack of sleep, I feel the need to apologize to good brother Neo. Mark Sheas books about Mary are instructive about history. I benefited from reading them. But his conclusions about Mary are in error. Sorry for the snap judgment

“Anglican theology say the the Church of Mary is in error.”
Okay, first off, it is the Catholic Church, not the “Church of Mary”. Second, Marian veneration is not Catholic exclusive. There might be some nuances–for instance, as an Anglo-Catholic myself, I am not bound to accept the immaculate conception (and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians) unlike a Catholic (of the Eastern Rite or Western Rite in union with Rome).

However, I am bound to accept her Ever-Virginity (my church affirms the seven ecumenical councils prior to the schism), that she is the Mother of God, and give her due veneration. No one believes that she is co-mediatrix or co-redemptress though (and those who do give her those titles do not mean those titles in the way you’re thinking of them). No one gives her latreia (divine services). We give her proskuneo (obeisance). There is a difference.

Images, when combined with text, are misleading only to those who wish to be misled. God forbids us making images to worship. I don’t see him saying we can’t do paintings and statues. You’re not a member of the Taleban are you Bosco dear? 🙂

Im not Taliban, but they are closer to the truth than people who use statues to forward their prayers. The commandment doest say its Ok to make images if one doesn’t worship them. Any sane person knows god was talking about images for worship purposes, not raggedy Anne dolls.

No, I want you to believe what the Bible says – what do you suppose the Magnificat says. ANd I want you to apologise for insulting her. Since when was poverty the same as ignorance. You are not poor, but you are not making much sense here.

Whats the deal with this female worship you got goin on? its not biblical. Why the female worship? Its not like I don’t understand. I used to believe nutty stuff befor I was born again. But I didn’t worship a female. Not that this makes me any better. But once you are born again, the false notions will fall away.

Now, now Bosco, don’t come that one again. Sometimes you say that you are not saying we worship Mary, then sometimes you say we are. We aren’t. No one worships Mary – we worship God. We show great respect (veneration) to Our Lady because of what she did for us. Once you are genuinely born again, you lose a contentious and fractious spirit 🙂 xx

Hear ye hear ye…let me set the record straight. I have and will always maintain that Mary worshipers worship Mary. Good sister Jess, you are included, as are all the Romanish devotes. Looks like I should included good brother Neo and his cult too. I wasn’t aware the Lutherans worshiped Mary. But, good brother Luther was catholic, after all.

I think it is a poetic description. I have a feeling you don’t read much poetry as you don’t seem to recognise language has different registers and tones for different uses. If someone says to me they ;love me to bits’ I don’t take that as a sign they want to dismember me – perhaps I should? 🙂 xx

I do wish you understood poetry and figurative language. I never met anyone who thought Mary had a throne, though I have seen many paintings where she has; you do understand the difference between figurative and representative art don’t you, dear Bosco?

Yes, I don’t know where Bosco gets the idea she was poor. The word used – tekton’ – can also mean builder. Given how near they were to the big Roman works at Caesarea Philippi, it is likely Joseph was a builder in a small way, and worked there, with his son.

That is how I always undertood the Holy Family . . . of modest means, but not poor. For the poor of those days was like the poor of Calcutta . . . without a home and reliant on begging as a means of eating.

Good sister Jess, you admitted you don’t care what the book says. The book says Jesus had brothers and sisters. you don’t believe that. Jesus said not to venerate his mother. You don’t believe that. Jesus said to call no man on this earth Father. You don’t believe that. he also said repetition of prayer is heathen. Im going to guess you don’t buy that either.

Good news is….every day above ground is a good day. jesus is knocking at your door. Open and he will come in.

No. I read what the book says. But I can read Greek and Latin. I think your problem is English is not a very good language in some ways. We have one wor, ‘love’ for what Greek has four words for. We have one word ‘hell’ for what the Greeks had three words four and the Hebrew one. So if you insist on reading ‘adephos’ as brother you get some silly readings such as the one’s C mentions in the piece I link to.

You do know, don’t you, that God is talking about heathen worship. We repeat the Lord’s Prayer all the time (or I do) – are you saying Jesus says we shouldn’t repeat it.

The Good News is that you are the only one who thinks you are the only one here who is saved 🙂 xx I think you are, but I know I am, and I think others are too – God is so much bigger than you think. Why make him so little that he fits into your head?

I think our knowledge of their financial status (without checking the text) is derived from Joseph and Mary’s offering of two turtle doves as the redemption price for their firstborn son. This was the sacrifice of a poor family a rich family would have offered a lamb.

I did a fair bit of research recently on the census mentioned in Lk 2:1 one source reckoned it was a 5% property inheritance tax decreed in 8 BC by Augustus, which explained the need for registry in their town of origin and that Joseph probably had some property in Bethlehem. I had meant to ask C his opinion on this.

Also having visited Israel I take your point about the large Roman building operations close to Nazareth and was aware that Joseph was a ‘tecnon’, a far wider term than carpenter it encompasses building and I think also the making of tools.

Starting working life as a tradesman with practical skills myself I conform there’s always cash to be made and the better your skills the more you are in demand. I think Joseph and Jesus wiled their hammers etc. with considerable skill.

I was told by a Messianic Jew that the cloth folded together in Jesus tomb sent the message of a craftsman to the world. Apparently when a craftsman finished a piece of furniture in that time the cloth he polished the finished article with was folded together and presented to the customer with the finished piece – declaring its completion. An interesting thought that the Saviour would make such a statement from His tomb in that way. He was a working man something his church is short of in many congregations – if men could only see Him in His manliness perhaps this would not be so.

Hah – fascinating about the cloth – and yes, makes perfect sense doesn’t it? Goodness me, a simple thing, but if anyone needed it, even more evidence of the truth of the Gospel accounts (I know we don’t need it, but you see what I mean I think?).

It doesn’t really matter how rich or poor, of course, but Bosco’s personal riff on Scripture – that she was ‘dirt poor’ seems not to be likely.

Did you see Geoffrey’s comment? Seems rather good to me – do you have any thoughts Rob?

I have a lot of thoughts and some concerns – just off out for dinner now and will try to put thought together when I get back. There are so many simple things in scripture like the ‘cloth’ that speak volumes as a tradesman the ‘cloth’ speaks to me and the depth of the thoughts Christ has towards me and so totally undeserved!

They lived from hand to mouth. But I am convinced that they had a better life once they had Jesus. Plus, the wise men gave them a heap of money. But they were still people of the earth…..dead ignorant. I believe good sis Jess or someone said Jesus sibblings were from good brother Josephs first marriage. Fantasy still abounds. Don’t mind what the good book says…only what the man in the fish hat says.

Now, where in Scripture does it say that? In old Judea carpenters needed workshops and tools, and they made things for people in the village. So why should they have been either poor or ignorant. I read the Bible, you riff on it – not the same thing 🙂 xx

True, everyone wasn’t poor. Who cares? I probably shoudnt have brought it up. I simply wanted to bring home that Mary wasn’t this brilliant glowing figure that the Marys make her out to be. As the saying goes “nothing good comes from Nazereth”

Where does the bible say so? Ill take that as meaning where does the bible say they were OK after Jesus was born. Well, the bible says the wise men gave them gifts of gold and other smelly stuff. frankincense and murr were used for embalming dead people and were expensive. I don’t have to tell you the gold they gave wasn’t just a handful. They came along way to see the savior and they gave them a lot of gold.
But does that matter?The queen of heaven is all that matters. She gives out all grace. Even though that is anti scriptural.

“She gives out all grace. Even though that is anti scriptural.”
Who believes Mary gives out all grace? We say she is “full of grace” which comes from the Latin Vulgate.
“Ave gratia plena” (Luke 1:28)
This literally translates to “graceful one” or “one filled with grace” or “one who has plenty of grace”.

I can give all kinds of quotes ad links to where the Marys say Mary dispenses all grace. Good brother Newengland, don’t make me go and do that. The Marys in here know all about that. Youre the only one in here that this is news to.

That is God’s work. I do, sincerely believe that you are born again, it is just that sometimes, because like the rest of us, the carnal man is still there, you (like me) do things you oughtn’t. We are here to help each other brother Bosco 🙂 xx

When one attributes to the virgin Mary (or anyone or anything else for that matter) the work which Christ alone has accomplished, the Christ of the Bible then becomes a lesser Christ, another Jesus as spoken of by the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). And the glorious gospel then becomes another gospel. This is a damnable heresy (Galatians 1:6-8). The Jesus of Catholicism is not the Jesus of the Bible, just a
satanic counterfeit who by the way is perpetually sacrificed in their sacrifice of the Mass. Do not be led astray by those who want to unify Protestants and Catholics. There is no fellowship between light and darkness. We need to rescue those who want to be rescued from the false Roman system, not embrace as brothers and sisters in Christ those who continue to love the Catholic Church. If we embrace them, not only are we participating in their evil deeds(2 John 9-11), we are deceiving them and leading them by the hand directly to hell. We too then become agents of Satan. He has succeeded in infiltrating the church, which is exactly his MO. We are warned about this all throughout the Bible. Satan camouflages himself behind political correctness and ecumenicalism (2 Corinthians 11:14-15), and makes it look unloving when we are not in unity with him. But we are not unaware of his devices (2 Corinthians 2:11).http://www.gty.org/blog/B130227/exposing-the-heresies-of-the-catholic-church-mary-worship

Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918: “To such extent did Mary suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for : man’s salvation . . that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”

We don’t worship Mary, we just like her alittle, because she redeemed us. Heck, we don’t care if that’s anti scriptural. We hate the scriptures.

Bennidict XV says it like it is. Mary redeemed mankind. Why give her lesser quality of worship? Well, the Marys say they give her lesser worship when asked. Its not a small matter. This practice will snuff out one from ever asking Jesus to come into ones life.

Good brother Jeff is more temperate than me. He used to be me. He says his friend drove him to be more inclusive. Good brother John was famous for that. But I will never suffer from tolerance of false religions.

One thing you all must know…..I and hired as a watchman. I sound the alarm when I see danger. If I don’t, I am derelict in my duty.

This is for Bosco. I know I will regret this, but someone from my side of the thing has to point up where MacArthur is wrong – and where he has a point. Far too much of the rubblish Bosco spouts is the product of his darkened intellect misunderstanding the darkened intellect of others- it is like a kind of Chinese whispers in an echo chamber. Here goes:

Mac is wrong in the way he describes Catholics as thinking Mary a corerdmer or comediator. Yes, they use words which on an uninstructed reading look like that, but what they mean is that thanks to Mary’s ‘yes’ to God, Jesus, who redeems us, came into the world.

And there is my beef, and when Mac has a point, but, as usual, ruins it. Catholics do not believe Mary is co-deemer in the sense he thinks, by using the word ‘co-redemptrix’ gives the impression they do. Using language about her being ‘Queen of Heaven’ is, I think, flowery stuff showing how much Catholics love her – but it is over the top, and to interpret that passage from the Revelation in that way is like the way old Bosco interprets some of it – over the top and too literal.

Mac is talking through the hole in his backside when he says Mary replaces the Holy Spirit – no one with a working brain and a loss of prejudice could think that – but the blooming language could give that impression.

Where he is spot on is all this stuff about interceding so God gives special Graces. This is all medieval court stuff, useful for explaining things in the Middle Ages, but badly out of date now. It gives the impression Catholics think God a miser who can be persuade by a nice lady to part with more Graces – and if that isn’t what it means, then language about ‘merits’ needs dropping, We merit one thing – hell-fire,

He is, as ever, talking spherical objects in saying tradition is exalted over Scripture – we only know the latter through the former.

Enough is enough, nutters to the left of me, jokers to the right … As I said, I’ll regret this. GRSS

By the way Jessica – spirited defence, and I’m glad the lad apologised for his language.

Geoffrey – yes – you certainly will regret engaging in any discussion with a Californian beach bum with a clown for an avatar.

But who on earth is this MacArthur chappie whom you write about? I’ve never heard of the fellow. But from what you say, he certainly doesn’t sound like a theological genius whom we should spend time on.

The place where they seem to go wrong (at least to me) is that they try to remove the miracle of the birth of Jesus born ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ and yet without sin, by trying to explain it. They don’t accept the miracle as it is; they also need to have Mary born without sin. Doesn’t this simply push the problem one generation back? And if we accept this line, doesn’t it lead to an infinite regression of people born without original sin? Doesn’t this somehow contradict their doctrine of original sin?

On the OS thing, if you accept Augustine’s definition – and I increasingly doubt it – then no, simply having God preserve Mary via a miracle, does the trick. The problem for me is if God can do that trick for one person, why not for all? I suppose the answer is that it happens to her because she will bear Jesus – but that then means she really had no free choice at the Annunciation – doesn’t it?

It all creates problems which no one needs if we just accept the miracle of the Incarnation!

Not having a choice at the Annunication as you conclude would also conclude that Adam and Eve had no choice as well. Being born without the stain of sin does not necessitate that will remian in that state . . . they can always revert to the temptations that led Adam and Eve astray. At least that is what I am thinking you are saying??? I see no theological problem here . . . but apparently it does with some of our Christian brother and sisters.

Good point. What I was thinking was this – that if Mary was entirely without the effects of Original Sin, then her will would automatically incline to God’s will. But as you say, that was not so with Adam and Eve – so good point, which I take and I think, concede.

It is difficult and besides the helpful more practical reply from Chalcedon, I might say the words are more spiritual than religious; the effect of submitting to having God rule over our hearts and the love expressed by his mother and even the saints beneficial for our growth in that love. They are our most visible understanding about how we are here to help one another not supernaturally but in being advocates for our souls and our rightful aspirations that are sincerely made. If we have a adversary who condemns us, it seems right that other might come to our assistance in being advocates for us and for our rightful desires. At least I like to think that, even if it is allegory, there is a tension between the rallying of those who love to see us fail to have an even wider defense to speak up in defense and counteract the work of our ancient foe . . . including those other men and women whom have never brought themselves to forgive us for our wrongdoings or sins perpetrated against them. We all pray that these enemies turn to being our advocates by grace: that they as we pray for one another and beg God’s pardon and the pardon for our own indiscretions and trespasses done against others.

Thank you. I am sure you are right, and that was my understanding. It does, alas, leave it open to misinterpretation – mind you, MacArthur could misinterpret for the USA in the Misinterpretation Olympics and win gold!

I fear so. I can’t recall its name (you will know it) but the Vatican II document on Mary helped open my eyes – and the rest was down to my old Catholic friend, now, alas, dead these few years, whose patent goodness and holiness did what apologetics had never been able to do – show me I was wrong about the RCC!

I know what you mean. When we meet truly spritual human beings that seem to have no malice for anyone but only love becomes a powerful force for good and understanding between people. You were very important to have him and count him as a friend as was I in my much older and wiser mentors in faith. It makes a world of difference.

It was the strangest of things. We were both rookie teachers straight out of college in our first job – thrown together by God’s Grace I’ve no doubt. We lost touch for many years but oddly enough, I met him again via the Internet, and was able to see him before he died.

It is that way, isn’t it? I too feel that it was providence that put me together with my teachers in faith. It is hard to describe to others how one feels that Christ has done this for the sake of our souls . . . He is loving Father that does not leave us as orphans. One feels that He cares enough to send us holy people to learn and to try to emulate.

Indeed, we cannot praise her efforts and her character too much. It is a small oasis in a desert of so much anger and vile abuse for individuals who disagree and have many misgivings about each other..

Please explain this Adam and Eve business. I always thought that Adam and Eve already had the predisposition to sin, before they ate any fruit from the forbidden tree.

At least that’s how I always understood the issue: why had they not already eaten the fruit of the tree of life (which was not forbidden) before the serpent came along? They were, after all, entrusted with stewardship of the Garden of Eden. They weren’t really very good at it or very passionate about it if they hadn’t looked over the whole garden.

Are you trying to say that before eating the fruit of the forbidden tree Adam had some Christ-like perfection, which he then lost? I always thought that he already had the predisposition to rebel against God right from his creation; I had been under the impression that that was the basic meaning of ‘Original Sin’.

Not being a believer in Augustine’s theories I’m fairly sure that ‘Original sin’ refers to the sin of Adam in the garden transmitted to his descendants – Augustine thought this transmission occurred through the sexual act of reproduction and (I think) that carried with it the guilt of that sin. It is claimed by others that his theory is based on a faulty reading of Romans 5:12.

Hi Jock . . . it is far beyond my ability to unravel all that is derived from this event as is the case with so many of the allegorical stories in Scripture. Let me say that with Catholic theology (I can’t speak for other Christians on this) the following gives a pretty good account. Let me know if this is what you were looking for: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Thanks for the link. I think it’s basically wrong. They write, ‘original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants’.

This is rubbish; before we come to Christ, we are ‘in Adam’ and we express our solidarity with Adam precisely when we sin. If ‘original sin’ is something that ‘does not have the character of a personal fault’ then it seems to me that it has nothing to do with anything that Holy Scripture describes as sin.

I do not know if I would call it rubbish for the theologians were much more adept than I at ferreting out their speculative theology concerning the Fall. I would only say that they seem to all have accord that before the Fall, Adam and Eve had a natural predisposition to God and that after the Fall they seemed to have a predisposition to self. That is a natural tendency . . . of which we are familiar . . . while the pristine state that we envision is something unknown to us and therefore must be imagined. So our ‘leanings’ were corrupted and ruled by self-will rather than God’s Will.

Indeed so Geoffrey and Catholics tottally reject that our nature is ‘utterly’ depraved. Our nature is good and simply missing a necessary ingredient: sanctifying grace.

This we receive by Christ . . . should we choose Him. Otherwise, all our actions are regulated by self, but with Him we begin to regulate our selves as we were intended: by the Will of the Creator. We fail often, but we tend to grow in likeness to God’s plan if we work at it. Through the grace of God it is made possible . . . and without His Grace we could never accomplish it.

The understanding that I have, Jock, is that Adam and Eve were created with what we would now call ‘sanctifying grace’ which is what we all need to be a child of God destined for heaven. Seems that Adam and Eve were fine without the temptation to be God themselves (Satan’s temptation) and thereby we lost the ‘sanctifying grace’ that we had previously. Since the soul is where our nature resides it is a fundamental deprivation of what our origianal created nature possessed: sactifying grace. So their prodigy did not inherit the personal sin (so to speak) but the deprived nature that once had sanctifying grace. How do we retrieve this? By Christ first and foremost and the Spiritual Baptism of ‘new birth’ made effective by the atonement of Christ for our sins upon the Cross.

Also nothing rests on Augustine alone. I think there is much of Original Sin, Adam and Eve and the Fall that we are still trying to unravel. We have more questions than we have answers.

What is defined is that we had 2 Original Parents and that they were created to live with God forever. Their sin brought death into Creation.

I can understand that, Rob, but I think folks need to give Augustine some slack here as well. My heart goes out to those Early Fathers that wrote the books on the library shelves . . . and did not have recourse to a whole library of 2000 years of thinking on these matters; no internet and few defined teachings. Others built their theology on their backs and corrected their errors. That is how it always works; in science as well.

My outlook is that Augustine overturned much of the theology of the Fathers that preceded him being unduly influenced by his previous Manichaean mind set and messed up due to poor Greek. I can sympathise over his plight but cannot give any slack to his teachings that in my opinion have been nothing short of disastrous for the faith.

Ah, but that is nature of putting forward new ideas, isn’t it. All of the Fathers are built upon. Some build well on one aspect and err on another. It is a process . . . Augustine never overturned ‘settled’ theology which the Church received. And from disasters as with a mistake in drug manufacturing (think Thalidomide) we learn and come up with better remedies to our problems.

Some of his original thinking seems to be enshrined in RCC and other churches so to my mind has led them astray. While other ideas were opposed to the spirit of Christ and taken up and developed by the church became a shame to the Lord – like his advocacy of violence to force the return of those in error. I think Christendom would be in a better state if it had never heard of him.

All I can say Rob, is that it is easy while living in the present age (of modern ideals of freedom and liberty) to see the errors of the past. Had you lived in his days, seeing the world as they did, I doubt you would have thought them strange or disastrous.

I’ve made no in=depth study of this issue: though I wonder if it is not like so many other theological premises where the truth lies in the explanation and the application of the theological thought . . . just as the injustice resides in the misinterpretation and mis-application. We need to use care before we jump headlong into condemning the thoughts which grew from times that were far from the world we see today. It seems the Christianity itself was not much different than the Hebrews struggled with among the pagans: strength and enforcement seemed the only way to keep order and to assure survival or corruption of the faith. In fact . . . we must find ways to that today as well. But, as moderns, we try to do this with as little bloodshed as possible. Just some thoughts. I have no definitive answers for this and it occupies precious little of my time for study or reflection. 🙂

I think if I had read the gospel of our Lord and responded to Him I would have been totally rejecting Augustine’s take on some things. The context of His times were not without the light of Christ, if they were he would have adequate excuse.

He was no stranger to Christ . . . his love of Christ as revealed in Confessions is among one of the most moving accounts of such. We can all think we would have done better than those before us . . . I choose to think that they did the best they could with the lights that were revealed to them.

Rob, one must always remember as well that a saint (such as St. Augustine) is not named a saint because of their theological thought or any work that they did in this world but in the supernatural world of personal struggles with the faith. They are revered and beloved as having wrestled successfully with the demons that we all face in life. So we account them as heroes of the faith. In this light, he is beloved and we read what he wrote.

Thank you Rob. I don’t hold with either of the extremes here. When I was a lad in Belfast I held the view Bosco holds, but through God’s Grace I know better. I just wish the lad could see that knowing better does not mean agreeing with those RCs who do use language open to misinterpretation – there’s a happy medium.

Its no joke. As good sis Jess started to reveal, hell is real and forever. This is where I disagree with Jesus. Why make people to just send them to eternal torture. Heck, I don’t even want to see good brother Hitler go to hell. To be honest, there are a few people I want to see there. Good brother Jeff, thanks for your calm posting. This is war. War in the spirit world. Satan battles for our souls. We cant see it but I see it all the time. Satan puts up these stumbling blocks, like saint worship and queen of heaven worship. They are lethal to ones soul. Its no joke. This stuff send people to hell if they die unsaved, expecting some virgin queen to save them. How nice do you want me to talk about stumbling blocks?

Geoffrey – when you were a lad in Belfast, did you use extremely foul mouthed language? And, while doing so, did you think that you were a witness for Christ?

Bosco is a heathen and has absolutely nothing in common with any servant of the Living God. He is simply a Californian beach bum with a clown for an avatar, doing his best to discredit the faith he claims to have. I don’t imagine that you were anything like him, ever.

I recall my older brother, who worked at Harland’s when he left school at 14, swearing in front of my father – he had his mouth washed out with soap and was given a good leathering – he never did it again. I learned the lesson. We were brought up to know that if you were a Christian you lived it, you didn’t just mouth it.

There are times with Bosco when I think there’s something there that is of God – but I wish he’d zip it and pray more.

This is a very sensible contribution to the discussion, Geoffrey – for which many thanks.

We have, I think to remember that Catholicism remained strong in many monarchical constitutions until well into the C20th, which meant that the references to the Queen Mother and the rest of it made sense for longer than one might think. That said, yes, I agree that some of the language used is not helpful.

But on that, we need to recall that St Cyril of Alexandria used to use language we might regard as ‘extreme’ to make good theological points: ‘the suffering of God’ – to make the point that Christ on the Cross really suffered because he really was human; and ‘the Mother of God’, because Christ was God, and so in saying Mary was his mother, a serious point was being emphasised against Nestorius.

It may be that in our more ecumenical age, such language is not appreciated any more 🙂

Thank you C. As you’ll know, St Cy’s language created misunderstandings, so I do think some moderation – or at least explanation, would be useful – not for Bosco- he can’t or won’t read, but for those who do.

I am truly upset that my brothers and sisters fall for demonic beliefs. If they wont ask Jesus into their hearts, maybe convincing them of their false beliefs might make them see a need for a better way.

Christ is all there is. There are no holymen, there is no queen of heaven, images don’t direct prayers, crackers don’t save, money wont buy uncle Lefty out of some fictious purgatory, there is no religion. Its all wind in sails. There is only Christ.

Good sister Jess……the first evangelist was a female. She was the first person to tell another that Jesus has risen.

But does that mean anything? Half the people on the planet are females.

The woman at the well evangelized a whole city in a matter of minutes.

The women in Jesus life were support ministries. They did his laundry and the cooking. Jesus had the same earthly needs we have. But the bad news for the Marys is…..his mother wasn’t one of his followers.

I’m not sure Bosco has not been baptised – in his comments I have noticed his reticence to admit he has been but never a denial that he has been baptised. I’m guessing that this is to keep the focus on a personal commitment to Christ rather than the act of baptism.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris